Gary Johnson for President

[Guaporense]

I been living in the US for a few years now and I am really worried about this present election but also hopeful that we might have a decent guy for the US presidential office if things turn out well: Gary Johnson.

Gary Johnson is not well known among the general public but already he has polled 7-10% and his duo for president and vice president is the one with the greatest experience in executive positions: Johnson and Weld each served as governors for 8 years (when they were with the Republican Party).

Given that major party candidates are hated by most people I would believe that Johnson could win the election with additional exposure: he would first win enough votes in some states to deny the majority of delegates to Clinton and Trump and in this case the congress votes and Johnson would probably be preferred by a republican dominated congress over Hillary (nobody would vote for Trump).

[Pelicula Pelican]

Before that can happen, he would need to poll at 15% to get in the main debates, which will give him the exposure. I'm rooting for the guy, if there was ever an election for a third party candidate, this would be the one. The Democrats and Republicans alike are running the most disliked candidates in the history of their party. Every time they open their mouths, more people find them unfavorable, Clinton can't stop lying and Trump can't stop insulting groups within this very nation.

[Guaporense]

Indeed. The main problem now is taking off to get to 15% in the polls. The main parties did that regulation of 15% just to block minor parties from having a shoot at the elections since they know they don't have the money to publicize the candidates enough for most voters to even be aware of them, automatically locking the US political system into a duopoly.

[doubledenim]

He was on Real Talk with Bill Maher this past week. He hasn't had edibles in 8 weeks. :bored:

[Pelicula Pelican]

. The main parties did that regulation of 15% just to block minor parties from having a shoot at the elections since they know they don't have the money to publicize the candidates enough for most voters to even be aware of them...

I couldn't agree with you more. 15% is too high of an expectation for a 3rd party candidate. I think the number should be dropped to 5%, that might sound small, but 5% of the polling is still quite a lot of Americans who feel strongly about said candidate. They should be allowed to spread their message to the masses.

What's interesting is that Johnson has been taking more supporters from Clinton than Trump. I suppose that could be because of the socially liberal stance of William Weld and Gary Johnson. It's unbelievable to me that they were advocating gay marriage in the early 90's! Many liberals weren't even gutsy enough to declare rights for the LGBTQ community in the early 90's. They were quite ahead of their time.

[matt72582]

Politicians change their stance when it's popular.

[Sedai]

I voted for Johnson in the last election, and will vote for him again in this election.

[Guaporense]

Didn't know you were a libertarian too Sendai. I guess Sci Fi fans and Libertarians tend to overlap (I heard a post in a blog about that, they though the reasons included the focus on changing society and being forward looking).

[Upton]

It's crazy that he's the best the Libertarian party could do in a year where there are potentially millions of disenchanted voters to swing. I tried watching one of their primary debates and it was just embarrassing public access TV theater. Johnson's a limp noodle as a politician and he fumbles even bread and butter talking points with his ideological inconsistencies. Clinton/Trump would pull his pants down if he ever got on a stage with them

[Guaporense]

Let's see that. Considering the level of Trump or Clinton I wouldnt think they could win a debate against anyone.

[Mr Minio]

Failing in other fields, including manga and film, Guap decides to dabble in the politics.

[Guaporense]

I am into politics for quite a long time: since 2005-2006 I have been heavily engaged and in 2007 I have been involved with the foundation of a political party in Brazil.

Though I don't actually understand this mocking behavior.

[Naisy]

Politicians change their stance when it's popular.

:rotfl: Sure that's why there are have universal gun background checks (87% support).

Politicians ONLY change their stance on popularity during an election year or when it will be beneficial to themselves. VERY few change based on the opinions of the public whom they are elected to represent.

[Daniel M]

What is Aleppo? (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/sep/08/aleppo-gary-johnson-syria-war-question)

[Camo]

OMG, that was painful. I kinda want to know what he said after that.

[Daniel M]

I was told about it my a friend (weeman) in real life, but when you watch the actual video it is indeed painful, one of those do I laugh or cry moments. In general I think its often refreshing to see someone willing it admit mistakes and confess to not having a complete knowledge of all issues, but this seems like a very odd one for someone of such a position to mess up on. He doesn't come across much better here

here (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ssn0gMQz6k8)

[Camo]

Yeah, i see what you mean. I remember him from the 2012 Republican debates at the time i just found him really dull and he seemed to get very little attention from the moderators. I don't even remember any of his ideas or positions i just remember him constantly talking about how great his record was as a Governor. If i remember right he dropped out pretty quickly and got the Libertarian nomination then too. In that second video he seems really spaced out and he constantly blinks which is so annoying haha.

[Guaporense]

Meh, the president doesn't need to know what's allepo. Because the USs issues are domestic and not international. Syria was actually caused by meddling from the west.

[doubledenim]

I don't see an independent ever having a chance. Perot seemed like the most viable and he was more like Republican 1b. if memory serves. The independents usually suffer from a major lack of personality, which we have seen to be a driving force in campaigns nowadays.

A vote for an independent this year is a vote for Trump.

[Daniel M]

So Guapo (or anyone else who wants to get involved) what is it that makes you a supporter of Gary Johnson and his party?

[Camo]

Whenever i see someone asked that i often hear his stances on weed brought up, not as the main reason anyone is voting for him obviously its just something that is usually noted. The best thing about it is in every single video i've ever seen of Gary Johnson he comes across incredibly stoned, he reminds me of what i looked like when i used to smoke it when i saw myself videod, nothing bad of course just always way more relaxed than you should be. I thought this back in 2012 when i watched the Repub Debates before i had any idea about his views on it. I don't believe he is actually stoned at all, and it has no relevance in any way. I just find something about it brilliant. It's art.

[Captain Steel]

"What is a leppo?"

It's pretty much my favorite animal. It's kind of like a Leopard and a Hippo mixed, bred for its skills in magic!

:napoleon:

[Guaporense]

So Guapo (or anyone else who wants to get involved) what is it that makes you a supporter of Gary Johnson and his party?

Because I am a libertarian: I think that people should be free.

And that's the principle of the libertarian ideology (also called "liberal" in the world outside of the US).

While everybody says they would agree they do not actually believe people should be free. For instance, most people think that the government should force everybody into attending school, most people believe that the government must force people to pay for the healthcare of everybody else, most people think that the government must control what types of medications people should be allowed to take (such as FDA approval for medication to be released into the market), most people think that the government should force people into save for their retirement (because they are too stupid to do that for themselves).

Many people also think that the government should block immigrants from moving across border, or block firms into investing across borders or goods from moving across borders. That people cannot marry whoever they want, or that people should be able to consume the drugs they want to consume.

I disagree completely on all those respects: people should be free to consume whatever drugs they want to consume, people should be free to move to any country they want to move to (actually, economists estimated that there would be huge gains for the global economy if the whole world went completely open borders), people should be free to spend their money in the way they want to spend their money (even if they don't plan for their own retirement or if they choose to not have health insurance and live with the consequences of their choices).

By the way, the libertarian ideology is just a new name for the classical liberal ideology of thinkers like John Locke, David Hume and Adam Smith. They had to make up a new name because the word "liberal" became distorted over the course of time mainly due to the Cold War.

[donniedarko]

Meh, the president doesn't need to know what's allepo. Because the USs issues are domestic and not international. Syria was actually caused by meddling from the west.

That's ridiculous.

[Daniel M]

Personally I think that leaving people completely to their own devices is dangerous. I believe that in a lot of social issues people should have more freedom in terms of travelling, freedom in terms of some drug consumption (weed) and less punishment for others, but I think the idea of no Government intervention is irresponsible for the country as a whole.

People tend to only look after their own self interests and are very short term, information is unbalanced and imperfect so people will always make wrong choices and there will always be those at a disadvantage due to luck of circumstances. Merit goods, demerit good, public goods are all things that fail when left to the free market. Even if you want healthcare to be dealt with by the free market, what about environmental regulation? I don't understand how supporting one party or one side of the political spectrum instantly means you think there should be one attitude that fits all. Leave companies unregulated to do what the want and sort out the consequences afterwards, or put in fair regulation that benefits society in the long term and protects everyone. The past has allowed people to arrive at different positions and the free market does not make people free I believe, sides are either inherently disadvantaged or advantaged.

Why would a person pay for stuff like roads, hospitals he rarely uses, flood defences, the army, the police that he might rarely rely on and so on? People are not "stupid" because they fail to save money for themselves, I think that's insulting, it's just a natural tendency to think single minded and short term because of the way the current world is.

[Yoda]

Personally I think that leaving people completely to their own devices is dangerous ... I think the idea of no Government intervention is irresponsible for the country as a whole.
That's anarchy, not libertarianism.

People tend to only look after their own self interests and are very short term, information is unbalanced and imperfect so people will always make wrong choices and there will always be those at a disadvantage due to luck of circumstances.
All of which applies equally to government, which is made up of the same uninformed, self-interested people. Except it's worse, because it also self-selects for people who are uninformed, self-interested, and really ambitious.

Think like Friedman: compare market solutions not to some imagined ideal of government, but to its reality. To the actual individuals that end up inhabiting it, and the things that motivate them. The comparisons don't look so rosy then.

The past has allowed people to arrive at different positions and the free market does not make people free I believe, sides are either inherently disadvantaged or advantaged.
The part before the comma appears to have no logical relationship to the part after it. You say it doesn't leave people "free," and then as evidence cite something other than a description of how free they are. The assumption appears to be that "freedom" and "advantaged" or "homogeneous" are supposed to be synonyms.

Freedom does not guarantee outcome, only opportunity. Though it would win on the outcome metric, too, historically.

Why would a person pay for stuff like roads, hospitals he rarely uses, flood defences, the army, the police that he might rarely rely on and so on?
"But what about roads!" is a running joke in the libertarian community for the frequency with which people throw it out as a supposed counterargument. ;) Again, libertarianism is not anarchy.

Suffice to say, people have a curiously hard time imagining how "the market" could do anything it hasn't had a chance to do, despite its myriad successes elsewhere. If the government had established a National Cellular Phone Plan a couple of decades ago I'm sure we'd be hearing about how we could never expect private companies to invest in their own satellites and absorb the associated startup costs just to bring us mobile phone service. And nobody would complain about the lack of smartphones or other advanced features, because they wouldn't miss the things they never imagined.

People are not "stupid" because they fail to save money for themselves, I think that's insulting, it's just a natural tendency to think single minded and short term because of the way the current world is.
I'm not sure I see the distinction between saying it's "stupid" not to save, and then agreeing it's a bad idea but saying it's their "natural tendency." If anything, it might be more insulting to say that they're just at the whim of "the way the current world is."

[Daniel M]

That's anarchy, not libertarianism.

Understood, I didn't mean literally no government intervention, but the minimal level, or the level in libertarianism, I still believe it's dangerous and doesn't work.

All of which applies equally to government, which is made up of the same uninformed, self-interested people. Except it's worse, because it also self-selects for people who are uninformed, self-interested, and really ambitious.

Think like Friedman: compare market solutions not to some imagined ideal of government, but to its reality. To the actual individuals that end up inhabiting it, and the things that motivate them. The comparisons don't look so rosy then.

I'd like to think that the government are more informed on issues such as the environment, warfare, education, healthcare and so on. How is someone who has been brought up in a family stricken with poverty and drug addiction who have deliberately kept them away from school, meant to be informed and make a correct decision when it comes to what he should spend his money on. Okay maybe I am comparing it to an ideal government that does genuinely put the welfare of its citizens first, but I do believe that the current alternative to libertarianism, reality, has proven successful. Guap talks about not forcing people to send their children to school and letting people take whatever they want in terms of drugs.

The part before the comma appears to have no logical relationship to the part after it. You say it doesn't leave people "free," and then as evidence cite something other than a description of how free they are. The assumption appears to be that "freedom" and "advantaged" or "homogeneous" are supposed to be synonyms.

To be, being at a disadvantaged would mean that you have less freedom than others. Free markets allow certain people, companies, powers to capitalise on wealth and power, control information and effectively control the people, ultimately restricting their true freedom in the sense that they have fair choice, information and opportunity.

Freedom does not guarantee outcome, only opportunity. Though it would win on the outcome metric, too, historically.

How does it guarantee opportunity? I'd say it creates mass levels of inequality and as mentioned above creates a system where power can be easily exploited as there is no regulation stopping them.

"But what about roads!" is a running joke in the libertarian community for the frequency with which people throw it out as a supposed counterargument. ;) Again, libertarianism is not anarchy.

What about the other things that I mentioned? Again going back to what Guapo talks about, sending children to school, stopping people taking harmful drugs. Roads is just a minor thing, but there are many sorts of goods and services that are either over, under or not provided to the detriment of society in free markets.

Suffice to say, people have a curiously hard time imagining how "the market" could do anything it hasn't had a chance to do, despite its myriad successes elsewhere. If the government had established a National Cellular Phone Plan a couple of decades ago I'm sure we'd be hearing about how we could never expect private companies to invest in their own satellites and absorb the associated startup costs just to bring us mobile phone service. And nobody would complain about the lack of smartphones or other advanced features, because they wouldn't miss the things they never imagined.

Free market is good for innovation and can be successful in a lot of areas, but again I repeat there are certain goods and services that I believe naturally are wrongly handled in the free market because suppliers and consumers only take into account actual cost/profit rather than the social benefits/detriment and the long term economic benefit/detriment. And I don't think its successes can be used for certain arguments like less regulation for the environment, legalising all kinds of medication, not making class room attendance compulsory etc.

I'm not sure I see the distinction between saying it's "stupid" not to save, and then agreeing it's a bad idea but saying it's their "natural tendency." If anything, it might be more insulting to say that they're just at the whim of "the way the current world is."

I believe they will always be at a disadvantage because a lot of them will not have the perfect information available to them, they will make decisions on the imperfect information they have available to them which I think is understandable.

[Yoda]

I'd like to think that the government are more informed on issues such as the environment, warfare, education, healthcare and so on.
Except this is also true of politicians whose views you find intolerable, isn't it? So having more facts at one's disposal doesn't necessarily correlate with better decisions. And it's easy to figure out why: both because it's easy to pick and choose which facts to trust based on underlying philosophy, and because it's not a given that anyone (let alone the highly ambitious) are going to use their information for the greater good.

This is the contradiction that almost every advocate of increased government fails to notice: every argument they make against the market is really an argument against the nature of all people, which applies just as much, if not more, to the people in government they want to give more power to.

How is someone who has been brought up in a family stricken with poverty and drug addiction who have deliberately kept them away from school, meant to be informed and make a correct decision when it comes to what he should spend his money on.
Except of course that lots of people are raised in horrendous circumstances and somehow manage to do just that.

It may not be as easy for everyone, but the distinction between "this is harder for some people" and "they have no responsibility to do it" is an important one.

To be, being at a disadvantaged would mean that you have less freedom than others.
The freedom to make a choice is not the same as the freedom to be insulated from the consequences of one's choices. If I use drugs, for example, I may severely reduce the actions I can freely take after that choice, but it would not be accurate to say I did not have those freedoms.

It is the intrinsic nature of choice that it precludes other outcomes. That's what choosing is. So what you're describing is not at odds with freedom, it is the inevitable result of free choices. If you find it unacceptable, then it isn't markets or libertarianism or deregulation that you find unacceptable: it is freedom itself.

Free markets allow certain people, companies, powers to capitalise on wealth and power, control information and effectively control the people, ultimately restricting their true freedom in the sense that they have fair choice, information and opportunity.
The problem is with the phrase "effectively control the people." This takes a very dim view of humanity, as if they were cattle that could be herded on a whim, and feeds into what I just said about disliking freedom itself.

And again, try the political comparison: if companies can do this, why can't government? Can government "effectively control the people"? And if people are so damn easy to control, then what virtue is there in democracy?

How does it guarantee opportunity?
Through competition, of course. Market-based societies invariably reward actions and talents that the bulk of society finds valuable, and is also staggeringly efficient at finding some value in nearly all levels of skill and talent.

I'd say it creates mass levels of inequality
Why do you think equality of opportunity would lead to equality of outcomes? Do you think people are identical/interchangeable? Do they have equal talents and make equally good choices? If not, then there's nothing in this assertion that is at odds with the idea of equal opportunity.

There's also the myriad assumptions contained in merely listing "inequality" as if it were self-evidently bad. But one thing at a time.

and as mentioned above creates a system where power can be easily exploited as there is no regulation stopping them.
Please elaborate on what power is "easily exploited" and why it's beyond the abilities of most people to resist it. And then, for bonus points, explain why the political power which regulates it is magically free of the same potential for exploitation.

Roads is just a minor thing, but there are many sorts of goods and services that are either over, under or not provided to the detriment of society in free markets.
Please list some of them.

Free market is good for innovation and can be successful in a lot of areas, but again I repeat there are certain goods and services that I believe naturally are wrongly handled in the free market because suppliers and consumers only take into account actual cost/profit rather than the social benefits/detriment and the long term economic benefit/detriment.
You say they "only take into account actual cost/profit" as if every business owner lived in the moment. I suppose this would be a reasonable guess, if we had no evidence either way. But we do, and we can plainly see that resources thrive when people have an economic stake in them. The plainest example is trees: there are more trees in the United States today than in 1900. Why? Because if we ran out, entire industries would collapse. Being sensible people, they consider the long-term and ensure that plenty of trees are planted as they cut down the existing ones.

You've heard of the tragedy of the commons, I take it? That tragedy comes not when too many people have a stake in something, but when too few do. Property incentivizes prudence: making spaces public is what disincentivizes it. Where is there more trash: a public park, or someone's backyard?

I believe they will always be at a disadvantage because a lot of them will not have the perfect information available to them, they will make decisions on the imperfect information they have available to them which I think is understandable.
The fact that you use the word "perfect" is, I think, the whole problem. For one, nobody has anything close to perfect information. That's the same comparison to the ideal mentioned earlier.

The question is: who is generally best trusted with decisions? And the answer is almost always: those who have to live with the consequences.

Libertarianism does not say "people always make the right choices." Neither does democracy. Both say "people making their own choices, in the aggregate, is better than other people making those choices for them." The fact that abusive parents exist doesn't invalidate the belief that letting parents choose how to raise their children is almost always the best policy. Similarly, the fact that people make bad choices is not a justification for restricting everyone's choices.

[Guaporense]

Personally I think that leaving people completely to their own devices is dangerous. I believe that in a lot of social issues people should have more freedom in terms of travelling, freedom in terms of some drug consumption (weed) and less punishment for others, but I think the idea of no Government intervention is irresponsible for the country as a whole.

The data doesn't support you thesis:

http://www.freetheworld.com/2016/economic-freedom-of-the-world-2016.pdf

People tend to only look after their own self interests and are very short term, information is unbalanced and imperfect so people will always make wrong choices and there will always be those at a disadvantage due to luck of circumstances. Merit goods, demerit good, public goods are all things that fail when left to the free market. Even if you want healthcare to be dealt with by the free market, what about environmental regulation? I don't understand how supporting one party or one side of the political spectrum instantly means you think there should be one attitude that fits all. Leave companies unregulated to do what the want and sort out the consequences afterwards, or put in fair regulation that benefits society in the long term and protects everyone. The past has allowed people to arrive at different positions and the free market does not make people free I believe, sides are either inherently disadvantaged or advantaged.

Why would a person pay for stuff like roads, hospitals he rarely uses, flood defences, the army, the police that he might rarely rely on and so on? People are not "stupid" because they fail to save money for themselves, I think that's insulting, it's just a natural tendency to think single minded and short term because of the way the current world is.

Well, it's a very complicated subject and this forum is not the right place to debate it.

[donniedarko]

Because I am a libertarian: I think that people should be free.

And that's the principle of the libertarian ideology (also called "liberal" in the world outside of the US).

While everybody says they would agree they do not actually believe people should be free. For instance, most people think that the government should force everybody into attending school, most people believe that the government must force people to pay for the healthcare of everybody else, most people think that the government must control what types of medications people should be allowed to take (such as FDA approval for medication to be released into the market), most people think that the government should force people into save for their retirement (because they are too stupid to do that for themselves). .

What do you think of Johnsons position on bakeries being forced to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple. And even going as far as saying that A Jewish baker should be forced by the government to bake nazi cakes (http://independentpoliticalreport.com/2016/04/gary-johnson-jewish-bakers-should-be-forced-to-bake-nazi-cakes/).

How free is that?

[Yoda]

Yeah, lost in the broader discussion about libertarianism is that Johnson isn't really much of a libertarian. And he seems to have become less of one as he's sensed an electoral opening in diluting his stance. Just pure opportunism, really.

[Miss Vicky]

Just out of curiosity, Guap: I know you've been living in the U.S. for awhile, but are you a citizen? If not, do you plan to become one? Pardon me if you said already and I missed it.

[Guaporense]

Yeah, lost in the broader discussion about libertarianism is that Johnson isn't really much of a libertarian. And he seems to have become less of one as he's sensed an electoral opening in diluting his stance. Just pure opportunism, really.

Well, he is not a pure libertarian, but he is still libertarian because he is "socially liberal" and "fiscally conservative". And hence, he is not a "conservative" nor a "liberal" in the American political spectrum. Hence, a libertarian.

[Guaporense]

Just out of curiosity, Guap: I know you've been living in the U.S. for awhile, but are you a citizen? If not, do you plan to become one? Pardon me if you said already and I missed it.

I don't know. It all depends on where my job takes me.

[Guaporense]

I should congratulate Yoda on the great posts on "political economy". :yup:

[donniedarko]

No ressponsore for my direct question, Guap?

[donniedarko]

https://youtu.be/NXhR41lsEJY

[Camo]

hahahaha. He genuinely frightened her there!! OMG, Gary Johnson is like the underground, hipster, obscure version of Trump when he is ridiculously funny.

[Daniel M]

Except this is also true of politicians whose views you find intolerable, isn't it? So having more facts at one's disposal doesn't necessarily correlate with better decisions. And it's easy to figure out why: both because it's easy to pick and choose which facts to trust based on underlying philosophy, and because it's not a given that anyone (let alone the highly ambitious) are going to use their information for the greater good.

You are correct, although I make the assumption generally that the alternative to a libertarian party is one that uses at least some element of state control and aims to take at least some interest in the long term consequences of different decisions that a lone person may not.

This is the contradiction that almost every advocate of increased government fails to notice: every argument they make against the market is really an argument against the nature of all people, which applies just as much, if not more, to the people in government they want to give more power to.

Yes, they are arguments against the nature of people, and I believe that market's left to the people fail to take into account true costs of a lot of important things and are detrimental to society in a number of elements in a way that this has to be covered by state controls. Once again, you may be correct in that the nature is similar and the alternative is not perfect, but I'm also inclined to believe that they are more perfect and make better decisions than just leaving it to the free market.

Except of course that lots of people are raised in horrendous circumstances and somehow manage to do just that.

Exceptions to the rule I think. Of course there are examples where people use the free market to create something great out of nothing. I do not think that free market, innovation, entrepreneurship and whatever should be banished at all. These things can still exist whilst the government also subsidises/gives support to to people less well off, can't they. Circumstance, determined by luck, I would say has an overwhelming influence on every decision a person will make in their life.

Don't you think that if the government was to invest more in public education, healthcare, training to help people who many would say are at a disadvantage, that overall there will be a benefit. It's a positive cycle whereby these people are better educated and end up contributing more to society, both socially and financially.

It may not be as easy for everyone, but the distinction between "this is harder for some people" and "they have no responsibility to do it" is an important one.

Yes, circumstances shouldn't be an excuse to absolve people of their own responsibilities, but often they don't understand their responsibilities or have things beyond their control preventing them.

The freedom to make a choice is not the same as the freedom to be insulated from the consequences of one's choices. If I use drugs, for example, I may severely reduce the actions I can freely take after that choice, but it would not be accurate to say I did not have those freedoms.

It is the intrinsic nature of choice that it precludes other outcomes. That's what choosing is. So what you're describing is not at odds with freedom, it is the inevitable result of free choices. If you find it unacceptable, then it isn't markets or libertarianism or deregulation that you find unacceptable: it is freedom itself.

Okay then, yes. It is "freedom" in this sense that I have the problem with. When left to the free market, or to have complete freedom, people make bad choices, often they only consider themselves, short term cost/gain, and there's a whole host of problems that I think occur, which then in turn hampers their freedom in the future.

I believe people make bad choices because of lack of understanding, because of circumstances which are beyond their control. Government intervening in their lives is also taking control away from them, but it offsets the disadvantage they're already at and gives them a chance of a more fairer life, where they are now more free to do a variety of different things, which would have become unavailable to them eventually in a free market because of forces that happens against them.

The problem is with the phrase "effectively control the people." This takes a very dim view of humanity, as if they were cattle that could be herded on a whim, and feeds into what I just said about disliking freedom itself.

I think this fits in to what I said above.

And again, try the political comparison: if companies can do this, why can't government? Can government "effectively control the people"? And if people are so damn easy to control, then what virtue is there in democracy?

Yes government can control the people and often there is an agenda but once again I take the view that government at least in principle should have the welfare of its citizens at its heart and should try and make decisions that it believes genuinely benefits everyone. Obviously, this doesn't happen in reality, perfectly, but I believe it's better than the alternative being no intervention at all.

And what do you mean what virtue is their in democracy? Even democracy is controlled, there are legislations and such in place in order to curb what decisions people can actually make. I'm not entirely sure what you are asking here, sorry, but I will see that people take advantage of democracy and are clever in ways so that they can cement their power and make it difficult for people to actually change things.

Through competition, of course. Market-based societies invariably reward actions and talents that the bulk of society finds valuable, and is also staggeringly efficient at finding some value in nearly all levels of skill and talent.

This can happen without libertarianism though, can't it?

Why do you think equality of opportunity would lead to equality of outcomes? Do you think people are identical/interchangeable? Do they have equal talents and make equally good choices? If not, then there's nothing in this assertion that is at odds with the idea of equal opportunity.

So people should be massively rewarded whilst others suffer because they happened to be born talented or come up with a good idea? Seems like a harsh world to me. I think if people are given are supported to a point where they can realistically attempt to work or produce something, then they should not expect to live in poverty.

There's also the myriad assumptions contained in merely listing "inequality" as if it were self-evidently bad. But one thing at a time.

It's not immediately bad, or inherently or whatever. But I do believe that yes, inequality in that luck of circumstance, who you were born as and what life you are given, has such a huge impact on what happiness/opportunities/income you will get in your life, is a bad thing.


Please elaborate on what power is "easily exploited" and why it's beyond the abilities of most people to resist it. And then, for bonus points, explain why the political power which regulates it is magically free of the same potential for exploitation.

Once power is established, rules are then created to create barriers from others removing them from power. Whether we're talking about laws, or the creation of monopolies within business.

And they are normally free from exploitation, because they have exploited their power to set up ways of protecting themselves and consolidating their position.

Please list some of them.

If left to the free market why would people contribute to National defence, army, flood defences, fire services, police, wars which they may see no direct benefit. Over provided is stuff like harmful drugs, unprovided is education, healthcare

You say they "only take into account actual cost/profit" as if every business owner lived in the moment. I suppose this would be a reasonable guess, if we had no evidence either way. But we do, and we can plainly see that resources thrive when people have an economic stake in them. The plainest example is trees: there are more trees in the United States today than in 1900. Why? Because if we ran out, entire industries would collapse. Being sensible people, they consider the long-term and ensure that plenty of trees are planted as they cut down the existing ones.

Again, there are positive examples of free markets and business leading to good decisions being made, but even in your own example it sounds like they've taken into account cost/profit with a decision that seemed fairly straightforward. I don't think this is always the case with stuff like pollution and tax avoidance even, they would rather save the money and deal with the consequences if they occur, not realising that they are hurting the economy/country in the process.

You've heard of the tragedy of the commons, I take it? That tragedy comes not when too many people have a stake in something, but when too few do. Property incentivizes prudence: making spaces public is what disincentivizes it. Where is there more trash: a public park, or someone's backyard?

Surely this is an example of people not taking into account full cost/benefits/consequences of options. They litter because they are lazy, not realising that they are damaging the country and also possibly incurring costs for themselves in future when taxation is used to cover costs of cleaning. In their own property, they directly see, or notice, the benefit of their actions. So government regulation is needed, the government control effectively charges people to keep it clean, or they should.


The fact that you use the word "perfect" is, I think, the whole problem. For one, nobody has anything close to perfect information. That's the same comparison to the ideal mentioned earlier.

True, although I've kind of addressed this throughout in that I think the alternative to libertarianism creates a society more fair and closer to what I would like.

The question is: who is generally best trusted with decisions? And the answer is almost always: those who have to live with the consequences.

But often people don't have to live with the consequences, or at least don't realise that they do. If I throw away a fag butt, what consequences are there for me, why should I care? The same with taking drugs, it's enjoyable, and I don't see any negative effects occurring to me, so why should I stop?

Trust the people who act as a collective and are elected because of their knowledge and whose job it is to protect the welfare of the citizens, and should in theory have more information than them, that's what I say.

Libertarianism does not say "people always make the right choices." Neither does democracy. Both say "people making their own choices, in the aggregate, is better than other people making those choices for them." The fact that abusive parents exist doesn't invalidate the belief that letting parents choose how to raise their children is almost always the best policy. Similarly, the fact that people make bad choices is not a justification for restricting everyone's choices.

My thought is more along the lines of, restrict people's ability to make bad choices, based on what we know generally leads to poorer quality of life, whilst continuing to allow people to make choices that research and past has shown to be of benefit and healthy to the economy and society.

[TONGO]

‘I Guess I’m Having an Aleppo Moment’: Gary Johnson Can’t Name a Single Foreign Leader

https://cdn1.nyt.com/images/2016/09/29/us/29xp-johnson_web1/29cp-johnson_web1-articleLarge.jpg

It was, in Gary Johnson’s own words, another “Aleppo moment.”

During a town hall-style interview on MSNBC on Wednesday night, Mr. Johnson, the Libertarian candidate for president, was asked by the host Chris Matthews to name his favorite foreign leader.

Mr. Johnson, appearing flustered, was at a loss to come up with a name.

He grasped at a former president of Mexico, Vicente Fox, who has been critical of Donald J. Trump, but was unable to remember his name without help — or the name of any sitting leader of a foreign country.

“I guess I’m having an Aleppo moment,” he said.

Mr. Johnson was referring to a remarkably similar episode earlier this month when, during another interview on MSNBC, he was asked how he would deal with the continuing situation in Aleppo, the ravaged Syrian city at the center of that country’s refugee crisis.

“What is Aleppo?” Mr. Johnson said at the time.

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/09/29/us/politics/gary-johnson-aleppo-moment.html?smid=tw-nytimes&smtyp=cur&referer&_r=0

[Yoda]

Exceptions to the rule I think. Of course there are examples where people use the free market to create something great out of nothing. I do not think that free market, innovation, entrepreneurship and whatever should be banished at all.
You recently described yourself as a Marxist though, yeah?

These things can still exist whilst the government also subsidises/gives support to to people less well off, can't they.
They will be invariably reduced and discouraged. And we have ample evidence that programs instituted under this line of thinking invariably expand. It's not hard to see why: if you can justify helping the worst off, why can't you justify helping people just a little less worse off? And then why not the people just beyond them? There is no logical stopping point before we reach economic stagnation (or outright collapse, in the more extreme cases).

There's also the simple pragmatic question of what policies actually improve things for the poor, regardless of our intentions. See below for more on that.

Circumstance, determined by luck, I would say has an overwhelming influence on every decision a person will make in their life.
Including the decision to vote for someone?

Don't you think that if the government was to invest more in public education, healthcare, training to help people who many would say are at a disadvantage, that overall there will be a benefit.
No, because we've tried it. Some of the worst school districts in America spend the most per student. Healthcare has gotten more expensive as regulation has risen. The cheapest necessities, like food and water, are among the most lightly regulated. And so on.

It's easy to see the logic of giving someone help when they need it. But really caring about people means caring about results, not what makes us feel good/generous. And that means looking at long-term effects. We've been expanding social programs long enough to see quite clear that there are all sorts of second and third-order effects having to do with incentives and reliance, which why nations like the United States can have a growing entitlement state, yet simultaneously insist things are worse than they used to be. If this isn't an indictment of the underlying philosophy, what would be?

Yes, circumstances shouldn't be an excuse to absolve people of their own responsibilities, but often they don't understand their responsibilities or have things beyond their control preventing them.
I think the part before the comma is arguing with the part after. Should people not be absolved, or do they not understand and have no control? It can't be both.

Okay then, yes. It is "freedom" in this sense that I have the problem with. When left to the free market, or to have complete freedom, people make bad choices, often they only consider themselves, short term cost/gain, and there's a whole host of problems that I think occur, which then in turn hampers their freedom in the future.
It seems to me that the essential nature of freedom is that it doesn't make this distinction. It would be meaningless to say you believe in free speech "except when people say really unpopular things." And it's similarly meaningless to say you believe in freedom, except if people use it to make choices you think are bad.

I believe people make bad choices because of lack of understanding, because of circumstances which are beyond their control. Government intervening in their lives is also taking control away from them, but it offsets the disadvantage they're already at and gives them a chance of a more fairer life, where they are now more free to do a variety of different things, which would have become unavailable to them eventually in a free market because of forces that happens against them.
Surely you realize how authoritarian this sounds? We have to take control of things for them to give them more freedom?

And what do you mean what virtue is their in democracy? Even democracy is controlled, there are legislations and such in place in order to curb what decisions people can actually make. I'm not entirely sure what you are asking here, sorry, but I will see that people take advantage of democracy and are clever in ways so that they can cement their power and make it difficult for people to actually change things.
I'm saying that the democratic process is premised on the idea that people can make good decisions, so saying they can't is incompatible with a belief in democracy. How can they be incapable of making good decisions about their own lives, but still capable of choosing who will make those choices for them?

This can happen without libertarianism though, can't it?
It's not binary: it happens more with libertarianism, and less the further from libertarianism you get.

Let's just eliminate the extremes here, because they're getting in the way of meaningful discussion. Let's assume nobody reasonable is advocating anarchy (or pure libertarianism), or Marxism (or pure socialism). It sounds like you basically acknowledge that markets are good/efficient. And if you do, then the burden of proof for government intervention is quite high, and two-pronged:

1. Something that will not happen outside of government coercion.

2. Something that will be a net benefit when considering the costs of that coercion, both for the people intended to benefit from it, and from the people harmed by enacting it.
I think it's very easy to shoot down the "do nothing" extreme, and I think it's very easy to simply say that some people need some help. But I think this breaks down when we start defending specific government programs by actually examining their effects.

So people should be massively rewarded whilst others suffer because they happened to be born talented or come up with a good idea?
"Massively rewarded" and "suffer" are loaded/exaggerated terms that don't apply in the majority of situations.

Re: "Happened to be born talented." Well, what's the alternative? Confiscating things and then distributing them to people with no regard for how much they actually help others?

And what does "talent" encompass? Talent alone is hardly sufficient for success (certainly not for anyone hoping to be "massively rewarded"). Diligence is just as important. But then, surely some individuals are more genetically hardwired to be more diligent. Do they get credit for that?

Heck, let's go even bigger: what does it even mean for a reward to be fair or unfair once you've decoupled it from merit? Is everyone entitled to an equal share of everything simply by virtue of existing?

Seems like a harsh world to me. I think if people are given are supported to a point where they can realistically attempt to work or produce something, then they should not expect to live in poverty.
Sounds like your entire philosophy of government/economics hinges on how you decide to define "poverty," then.

If you define "poverty" in relative terms, then it's an impossible criteria to fill without total state control, because there will always be poor people if you define poor people only as those who have less than others. So it's either poorness, or forced egalitarianism.

If you define "poverty" in absolute terms, then capitalistic societies win handily, in that they have consistently and invariably raised the definition of "poor." And that ties back into the empirical question I mentioned earlier: if the first priority is helping people in need, why on earth would we stray from an economic system that has been dramatically better at lifting most people out of poverty than literally anything else in the history of the world?

It's not immediately bad, or inherently or whatever. But I do believe that yes, inequality in that luck of circumstance, who you were born as and what life you are given, has such a huge impact on what happiness/opportunities/income you will get in your life, is a bad thing.
Thought experiment: would you rather everyone get $10,000, or most people get $15,000 and a select few get $20,000? Which is better, and why?

Once power is established, rules are then created to create barriers from others removing them from power. Whether we're talking about laws, or the creation of monopolies within business.

And they are normally free from exploitation, because they have exploited their power to set up ways of protecting themselves and consolidating their position.
I'm consistently surprised at how often people see this situation--government influencing the creation of beneficial laws--and immediately decide that the solution is to heap more laws on the process by restricting business. This is literally saying "Businesses can rig the rules, so let's make a rule against that."

Again, there are positive examples of free markets and business leading to good decisions being made, but even in your own example it sounds like they've taken into account cost/profit with a decision that seemed fairly straightforward.
Of course they have. Because my argument isn't "they don't care about cost/profit" it's that "caring about cost/profit actually extends well beyond short-term considerations." Being all about the bottom line is not the same as not caring about the future. To the contrary, the most effective businesses are the most forward-looking.

I don't think this is always the case with stuff like pollution and tax avoidance even, they would rather save the money and deal with the consequences if they occur, not realising that they are hurting the economy/country in the process.
I see precious little evidence that government is any different. Look at how they respond to budget shortfalls and the like.

Surely this is an example of people not taking into account full cost/benefits/consequences of options. They litter because they are lazy, not realising that they are damaging the country and also possibly incurring costs for themselves in future when taxation is used to cover costs of cleaning. In their own property, they directly see, or notice, the benefit of their actions. So government regulation is needed, the government control effectively charges people to keep it clean, or they should.
To the contrary, that's precisely why government regulation is misguided. You just said it yourself: "In their own property, they directly see, or notice, the benefit of their actions." So why would the solution be to socialize more property, more things, rather than to give individuals more ownership?

There's a very insidious self-fulfilling nature to government intervention: it posits that people can't or won't do things the right way, so it intervenes and makes that true by absolving them of individual responsibility for it. Which makes people more careless, which in turn is used to justify more intervention.

But often people don't have to live with the consequences, or at least don't realise that they do. If I throw away a fag butt, what consequences are there for me, why should I care?
I'm glad you asked: there are laws against doing that now, right? Yet you still see them all over the place. So is the idea to merely project the idea that we don't like litter, or is the idea to actually reduce it?

Same question for poverty: is the idea to reduce poverty, or to be able to point to a program and use it to feel better about ourselves?

The same with taking drugs, it's enjoyable, and I don't see any negative effects occurring to me, so why should I stop?
But you're not a drug addict, I take it. Neither am I. So clearly there's a bit to the decision making process than "it's enjoyable." We're not animals.

Trust the people who act as a collective and are elected because of their knowledge and whose job it is to protect the welfare of the citizens, and should in theory have more information than them, that's what I say.
I don't know if I disagree "in theory." Just in reality.

[Frightened Inmate No. 2]

‘I Guess I’m Having an Aleppo Moment’: Gary Johnson Can’t Name a Single Foreign Leader

https://cdn1.nyt.com/images/2016/09/29/us/29xp-johnson_web1/29cp-johnson_web1-articleLarge.jpg

it's actually kind of amazing how dedicated gary johnson is to proving he's the most incompetent person in this race.

[TONGO]

I mean :laugh:

Hes a nice guy!

[Captain Steel]

I said it before...

"What is a leppo?"

It's pretty much my favorite animal. It's kind of like a Leopard and a Hippo mixed, bred for its skills in magic!

:napoleon:

But seriously, with this most recent gaff, Johnson missed a prime opportunity!
He had an opening to segue into almost anything. He could've said, "I don't have a favorite at the moment, but I'll tell you something about the kind of foreign policy my administration will have and which will gain the respect of others..."

You know how politicians don't answer the question, but then just go off on a tangent, talking about their campaign promises? Johnson was handed an opportunity to do that and flopped. He obviously doesn't think fast on his feet.

[Guaporense]

He is not a professional politician like Hillary who has been trained to make everybody momentarily happy which what she says for 30 years.

Well, since he didn't show up in the debate and is decreasing in the polls he is out of the race anyway. He knows that and now he is angry:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZnARyWQWnkg

[Guaporense]

‘I Guess I’m Having an Aleppo Moment’: Gary Johnson Can’t Name a Single Foreign Leader

https://cdn1.nyt.com/images/2016/09/29/us/29xp-johnson_web1/29cp-johnson_web1-articleLarge.jpg

It was, in Gary Johnson’s own words, another “Aleppo moment.”

During a town hall-style interview on MSNBC on Wednesday night, Mr. Johnson, the Libertarian candidate for president, was asked by the host Chris Matthews to name his favorite foreign leader.

Mr. Johnson, appearing flustered, was at a loss to come up with a name.

He grasped at a former president of Mexico, Vicente Fox, who has been critical of Donald J. Trump, but was unable to remember his name without help — or the name of any sitting leader of a foreign country.

“I guess I’m having an Aleppo moment,” he said.

Mr. Johnson was referring to a remarkably similar episode earlier this month when, during another interview on MSNBC, he was asked how he would deal with the continuing situation in Aleppo, the ravaged Syrian city at the center of that country’s refugee crisis.

“What is Aleppo?” Mr. Johnson said at the time.

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/09/29/us/politics/gary-johnson-aleppo-moment.html?smid=tw-nytimes&smtyp=cur&referer&_r=0

His foreign policy is isolationism. Hence, there is no need for him to know anything about the world outside of the US since his government will not intervene in other countries. You know that for most of history the US has pursued an isolationist policy, only after WW2 that they began to intervene in other countries due to the collapse of the British and French emlires, to maintain certain stability around the globe. Now that the rest of the world is more stable without crazy governments like Hitler and Stalin there is no need for interventionist foreign policy that kills tens of thousands of civilians (well, all the mess in the Middle East started with the invasion of Iraq which combined with all the stuff happening in the past 13 years yields about 700,000 deaths in the Middle East, caused directly or indirectly by US intervention in the region.

[Camo]

He was never in the race and he comes across incredibly inept so even if he hypothetically took the Republican nomination which he tried to in 2012 i can't imagine him appealing to enough independents to get anywhere, as much as he is rightfully hated he has nowhere near the appeal of Trump or say Ron Paul.

[TONGO]

His foreign policy is isolationism. Hence, there is no need for him to know anything about the world outside of the US since his government will not intervene in other countries. You know that for most of history the US has pursued an isolationist policy, only after WW2 that they began to intervene in other countries due to the collapse of the British and French emlires, to maintain certain stability around the globe. Now that the rest of the world is more stable without crazy governments like Hitler and Stalin there is no need for interventionist foreign policy that kills tens of thousands of civilians (well, all the mess in the Middle East started with the invasion of Iraq which combined with all the stuff happening in the past 13 years yields about 700,000 deaths in the Middle East, caused directly or indirectly by US intervention in the region.

No Guap, its chilling that he couldnt name one leader of a foreign country or he just froze under the most simplistic questioning. If Americans are going to vote outside the big 2, then represent with someone that can do the job better than what the big 2 will present. Gary Johnson is not it. He might be sound enough guy to be a mayor of a small town, but people need to wake the hell up and stop supporting an incompetent ass in Trump, or an incompetent nice guy in Gary Johnson for the Presidency. Trumps talking about building a wall to seperate us from Mexico, and youre saying Gary Johnson is going even further by making our country isolationist?! :rolleyes: Fear, with pretty words disguising it. No thats not an agenda our nation should follow, imo.

[Goofy Dude]

He is an idiot. Not because he couldn't come up with a name. But by not side stepping it. All he had to say was he had no favorites.


He still looks a lot better than Donald Trump. He is still attacking that Miss Universe. Yeah, Donald, that's the way to go. Piss off women and Hispanics some more.

[Camo]

He might be sound enough guy to be a mayor of a small town,

To be fair he was a very successful Governor of a mid-large State, plenty will disagree with what he did as Governor but he wasn't a failure in that capacity IMO. Otherwise i agree with everything you said.

[Goofy Dude]

Gary Johnson is a wishy washy Libertarian. Unlike Donald Trump he is pretty harmless.

[Guaporense]

No Guap, its chilling that he couldnt name one leader of a foreign country

They didn't ask him to name one leader. They asked him one leader of a foreign country he admired. As a libertarian I also do not actually admire ANY leader of ANY country, so he was thinking about it.

You think that's stupid because you don't understand libertarian ideology.

Johnson was doing it wrong because he also didn't appear to understand that he was supposed to answer that quickly (Weld is a more competent person in that sense) to not make people who don't understand libertarians believe that he is ignorant.

or he just froze under the most simplistic questioning. If Americans are going to vote outside the big 2, then represent with someone that can do the job better than what the big 2 will present. Gary Johnson is not it. He might be sound enough guy to be a mayor of a small town,

It's actually very easy to be president of the US. Most presidents of the US were not exceptionally intelligent and talented people (Bush? :rolleyes:), in fact, the president is not supposed to be someone that's superior to the common citizens on an intellectual level. Most presidents were just charismatic politicians (and Hillary is not charismatic, nor intelligent, nor competent and not honest).

but people need to wake the hell up and stop supporting an incompetent ass in Trump, or an incompetent nice guy in Gary Johnson for the Presidency. Trumps talking about building a wall to seperate us from Mexico, and youre saying Gary Johnson is going even further by making our country isolationist?! :rolleyes: Fear, with pretty words disguising it. No thats not an agenda our nation should follow, imo.

No, I mean isolationism in terms of foreign policy not in terms immigration policy. The US traditionally has been isolationist and open to immigrants (in the 19th century up to the 1930's). That's Johnson policy.

Trump also appears to advocate for isolationist foreign policy, while Clinton is more of a fan of intervening in foreign countries.

[Guaporense]

He was never in the race

If he made to 15% in the polls and he was 11-12% a few weeks ago, he would be in the debates. Hence, he was in the race yes.

and he comes across incredibly inept so even if he hypothetically took the Republican nomination which he tried to in 2012 i can't imagine him appealing to enough independents to get anywhere, as much as he is rightfully hated he has nowhere near the appeal of Trump or say Ron Paul.

But Hillary is completely unappealing but she is leading the polls. The reason why she is not 40 points above Trump is just because she is indeed completely unappealing otherwise she would have already won this election by a landslide.

[matt72582]

I actually liked the way he didn't side-step or come up with excuses in either scenario.

Stein>Johnson>Trump>Clinton

[Goofy Dude]

If he made to 15% in the polls and he was 11-12% a few weeks ago, he would be in the debates. Hence, he was in the race yes.



But Hillary is completely unappealing but she is leading the polls. The reason why she is not 40 points above Trump is just because she is indeed completely unappealing otherwise she would have already won this election by a landslide.
Neither Hillary or any candidate will ever be forty points ahead. Her unpopularity at best is probably costing her six or seven points. Party loyalty and ideology gives candidates from both parties a floor of support

[donniedarko]

Guap, could I get a response? It's not everyday you can talk to a true Johnson supporter, and am curious as to what you think about this

What do you think of Johnsons position on bakeries being forced to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple. And even going as far as saying that A Jewish baker should be forced by the government to bake nazi cakes (http://independentpoliticalreport.com/2016/04/gary-johnson-jewish-bakers-should-be-forced-to-bake-nazi-cakes/).

How free is that?

[TONGO]

Gary Johnson Couldn't Name North Korea's Leader, Kim Jong-Un

http://img-s-msn-com.akamaized.net/tenant/amp/entityid/BBx3lse.img?h=680&w=1019&m=6&q=60&o=f&l=f&x=1663&y=957

Gary Johnson, the Libertarian presidential nominee, can’t seem to catch a break.

After a couple of very public mistakes, including asking an interviewer what Aleppo was and the time he struggled to name a foreign leader he admired, the former governor of New Mexico on Wednesday had another embarrassing moment.

When The New York Times asked Johnson if he knew the name of North Korea’s leader, he answered simply, “I do.”

But when the Times pressed him to produce a name, Johnson reportedly said, dryly, “You want me to name ... Really.”

Johnson didn’t name the North Korean leader, the Times article suggested. (The dictator’s name, by the way, is Kim Jong-un.)

https://twitter.com/maggieserota/status/783881607535091712

The lapses seem to suggest that Johnson needs to brush up on his knowledge of the world and U.S. foreign policy if he wants to be president.

According to the Times article, Johnson followed up his vague North Korea answer with a response similar to one he offered during an MSNBC interview on Tuesday while addressing his “foreign leader flub.”

“Because Hillary Clinton can dot the I’s and cross the T’s on geographic leaders, of the names of foreign leaders ... the underlying fact that hundreds of thousands of people have died in Syria goes wayside,” Johnson told the Times. He added that Clinton is partly responsible for what’s happened in Syria.

Similarly, when MSNBC’s Andrea Mitchell asked Johnson about his foreign policy expertise ― or lack thereof ― during an interview, he said, “You know what? The fact that somebody can dot the I’s and cross the T’s on a foreign leader’s geographic location then allows them to put our military in harm’s way.

“It’s because we elect people who can dot the I’s and cross the T’s on these names and geographic locations as opposed to the underlying philosophy, which is, let’s stop getting involved in these regime changes,” he added.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/gary-johnson-couldnt-name-north-koreas-leader-kim-jong-un/ar-BBx3t5v?li=BBnbfcL

http://www.troll.me/images/uncle-sam/you-sir-are-a-putz-thumb.jpg